Postcards from the Election in France

 

Phew, that was really down to the wire. (Submitting this thing on time, that is — not the election.) Some deadlines have a bit of wriggle room, but not this one: France wasn’t going to postpone its election because I hadn’t finished my article. I ended up cutting it so close that the polls had already opened by the time my editors got the final pass. But I finished it, at least, before the results came in.

So here’s the link to the long-awaited article, which is in fact eight short articles. Yes, seriously. My plan was to write each individually, as standalone pieces. But I would have needed another week to do that properly, and I would have had to rustle up seven more editors. So I knit them into one, instead. The articles, not the editors. If you haven’t got time (or patience) to read eight articles about France, just pick one:

  1. Poudre de Perlimpinpin
  2. Monkey Eyeballs
  3. You, Madame, are no Margaret Thatcher 
  4. The Horseshoe
  5. The Vice
  6. The Champs-Elysées and the Pattons of Our Basement
  7. May Day
  8. The Knife

And if you still want more when you’re done, you may have missed this when I wrote it: Last Minute Thoughts on Marine Le Pen.

Anyway, my infinitely-patient editors at The American Interest didn’t reproach me for sending all of that to them with only hours to go before the polls, nor even for sending them a frantic update explaining that a big thing had happened at the last minute, but I’d better not get into the details. I’ll bet they were cursing me privately, though. (I’m sorry about your weekend, Adam and Daniel.)

NB: All polling, by law, ends at midnight the Friday before the election, as does campaigning. And critically, in light of the massive hacking attack on Macron, so does “media coverage seen as swaying the election.” So this is what the headlines here look like right now: 

I’ll report back when the results are in, but if you’ve read my article, you know what will happen.

Vive la France, and thank God for the reporting ban. I couldn’t be more pleased to have a great excuse not to write another word all weekend.

 

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 59 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    genferei (View Comment):
    origins amd timing of the leaks that took out Fillon.

    Well, since he’s not running today, I assume I’d be breaking neither the letter nor the spirit of French law if I started a chat about this: Whodunnit, you think?*

    Here’s my guess: Sarko.

    Why? Because I think this one was a) an inside job: I reckon the Russians would have been almost as pleased to have Fillon in office as Marine, so I can’t see them pulling out the stops, or taking such risks, to cut him down — I mean: why?; b) Sarko was in a position to have known; c) cui bono? and d) He’s capable of it.

    What’s your theory?

    NB: Any speculation about this will by definition be a conspiracy theory, since it’s a theory about a conspiracy. We do know there really was a conspiracy: That information didn’t get in the hands of the Canard Enchaîné by itself. And no one here has inside information about how it happened — or if they do, I just can’t imagine Ricochet, of all places, is where they’d reveal  it — so for sure, whatever we speculate here is just a theory for which we have no evidence. Put it together and you’ve got a conspiracy theory, which in principle is a violation of the CoC. So let me just stress: Playing whodunnit about the Fillon affair is a Sunday-morning game, not a serious argument.

    PS: If anyone here has not been following the details of this election closely enough to know what happened to Fillon, that would be very understandable, so here’s a quick briefer: Basically, after he’d already won the Les Républicains primaries, Fillon’s candidacy was tanked by a series of leaks to the Canard Enchaîné — the paper to whom you leak if you’re serious about taking down a French politician — about the fake jobs he’d created for his family members. The scandal quickly became known (after his wife) as Penelopegate, and destroyed his chances in the second round.

    • #31
  2. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    Claire, how is supporting the European Union Conservative?

    How is it not? Many conservative politicians (from Winston Churchill to Margaret Thatcher*) supported it or its precursors; so have many left-wing politicians. The EU itself is not inherently right- or left-wing, that’s up to the politicians who comprise it.

    *It’s not well-known that she supported it, but she did. She did not support monetary integration, however, which was prescient. But she campaigned avidly in favor of the 1975 referendum to keep Britain in the EEC. You can read one of her best-known speeches in that campaign here, and of course I wrote about it in my book about her.” These were her views:

    It is important that we should not allow people to become bored with the arguments. For it is essential that we not only win the Referendum on June 5th but win it with a decisive and unchallengeable majority.

    We must all make every effort to ensure that the people of the Borough of Barnet actually get out on Referendum day and vote ‘Yes’.

    The case for Britain’s continued membership is being made strongly throughout the country. It is a strong case. I do not want to repeat all the arguments of that case tonight, but rather concentrate on those parts which have not yet been thoroughly debated.

    At a time of uncertainty in world affairs, Europe gives us a far better chance of peace and security and if we wish our children to continue to enjoy the benefits of peace, our best course of action is to stay in Europe.

    The anti-Marketeers would like us to insulate ourselves from the rest of Europe and isolate ourselves from the remainder of the world.

    But neither the instincts nor the interests of this country are isolationist.

    Indeed it has been our practice to record the history and development of mankind. Traditionally we have always looked for our island livelihood and safety to being part of a larger grouping.

    When geographical discoveries placed us on the main route between the New and the Old Worlds, the British sense of mission and adventure created the greatest maritime Empire the world has known.

    When tyranny threatened the nations of Europe, we created a balance of power which preserved the Continent as well as ourselves.

    These were not the parochial politics of “minding our own business”. Our business spanned the world. ….

    Outside of the Community, we should have to bargain for ourselves, squeezed between the world trading giants.

    Inside the Community we have the strength of the trading power that we need by being a member of the world’s most commercially strong trading group.

    This trade bloc comprises, let it be remembered, our closest neighbours and our largest customers. How could we withdraw from it without damaging our industry in general and our exports in particular?. Such withdrawal would severely shrink the effective scale of the “home market” for many of Britain’s most sophisticated manufacturers. It would correspondingly render the Continent more attractive but Britain less attractive to investment.

    And it would mean that Britain’s trade with Western Europe—still our fastest growing market—would be conducted on terms and regulated by rules in which had had no say.

    Is it little wonder that there is not one leading British company that wishes us to leave Europe?.

    Why? Because they know that to leave the Community would make British goods less attractive, and British exports would have to compete on ever increasingly unfavourable terms in Europe, as decisions were made affecting us, but in which we have no say.

    Not only do we have to export to survive, we have also to attract new investments into Britain to provide new jobs and allow industry to expand. Since January 1973 at least 82 companies from the rest of the Community have either started or expanded operations in Britain. Can we honestly expect that Europe and the rest of the world will continue to invest in Britain if we leave the Community?

    Therefore the Community gives us — access to secure supplies of food — helps us to obtain the industrial raw materials we need — provides us with a large home market for our exports — gives us a greater chance of attracting foreign investments into Britain.

    To leave such a Community would not merely be a leap in the dark, it would be like a leap overboard from a secure ship into dark and unchartered waters.

    Is Britain really in such a strong economic position that we can afford to jump overboard into the cruel and choppy sea?

    That is not to say that if we stay in Europe it will all be plain sailing. It will be hard work. But at least there is a better chance that we will eventually make it to harbour.

    But so out of touch with reality are the anti-marketeers like Mr. Benn that they seek to prove that by throwing ourselves into the dark, unchartered waters, that there will be more jobs available.

    There is no evidence of this whatsoever. Indeed all the evidence is to the contrary. A poll has just been published by the Opinion Research Centre which shows that of the large sample of firms questioned, three quarters expected they would suffer at least some harm, 41 per cent of them a lot of harm, while only 6 per cent expected to benefit.

    Forty one per cent expected to invest less in Britain after withdrawal, only 5 per cent to invest more: 51 per cent expected to employ fewer people in Britain, only 5 per cent to employ more.

    The evidence is clearly that if we leave the Community, there will be fewer jobs. But the dangers do not end there. To come out of the Common Market could lose us influence and standing, not only in Europe but in the Commonwealth as well. Some 22 of the developing countries of the new Commonwealth have obtained agreements with the European Community, giving them virtually free access to the Common Market. How many of them, if forced to choose between these advantages and their old links with Britain, would choose the latter rather than the former?

    And the older Commonwealth countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada—not one of them believes that it would be in their interest or in ours, or in Europe’s, were we to withdraw from the Common Market.

    But say the anti-marketeers, if you vote No in the Referendum, you will get back your sovereignty. The truth about sovereignty is that in the European Community each of the member states continues to enjoy all its individual traditions—constitutional, administrative, legal and cultural.

    What it believes to be its vital national interests are safeguarded in principle by a right of veto, and in practice by a continuous process of compromise and accommodation.

    Naturally, any international treaty or agreement or convention involves some derogation of sovereignty in the juridical sense of the word.

    This is true of the principles ambodied in the Charter of the UN—as it was of the former Covenant of the League of Nations. It is truer still of such institutions as the GATT and NATO. The issues involved and the obligations undertaken through membership of these organisations, which have existed since the 1940s, are at least as far-reaching as those under the Treaty of Rome.

    That Treaty carefully defines the areas of economic and social policy where decisions are pooled. Such areas cannot be extended without unanimous agreement of the member states. Within these areas the main responsibility rests with Ministers of democratic countries. In our case with British Ministers responsible to Parliament at Westminster.

    I do not deny that, by comparison with her neighbours, Britain has for generations thought of herself as a power that was different in kind. Proudly so. It is this sense of distinctiveness that anti-marketeers play upon when they promise “independence” by return of post.

    But their prospectus ignores the fact that almost every major nation has been obliged by the pressures of the post-war world, to pool significant areas of sovereignty so as to create more effective political units.

    On the last Independence Day of his life, the late President Kennedy announced to the assembled Governors of States at Philadelphia that independence for their country was no longer enough. One by one he went through the familiar, sonorous clauses of the preamble to the American Constitution: and one by one he showed how inadequately they fitted within a simply national frame of reference.

    “By ourselves we cannot”, he said, “Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, or secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity”. Only by joining with other free nations could these ends, and more besides, be won. This Declaration of Interdependence rang round the world.

    It carried a loud, plain warning to other great countries against burying their heads, ostrich-like, in the sands of the past. For if the richest and most powerful of democracies acknowledged that it could not live by itself alone, then surely isolationism had become an obsolete concept none of us could now afford. What we needed instead was partnership—in the political, military, social and economic fields—and machinery to make that partnership endure.

    In the public life of Western Europe, this has been a dominant theme for thirty years. Some of its finest expressions are to be found in the eloquent words and constructive work of Sir Winston Churchill, Mr. Harold Macmillan and Mr. Edward Heath. We are justly proud in the Conservative Party, that it was our leaders who ranged ahead in thought and imagination.

    It is now the active duty of all of us to ensure—by argument, influence and vote—that what they helped create we help conserve.

    As I said in the House of Commons when this final phase of the debate began, the paramount motive for doing so is political—the warranty for peace and security. The countries of western Europe, by working ever more closely together in economic and social concerns are building bridges of reconciliation and understanding between peoples long divided by rivalry and conflict.

    Had they done so sooner, the fearful slaughter of two world wars in one half-century might never have happened. Alas, we cannot call back yesterday; but for tomorrow we are, each one of us, solemnly responsible to our children.

    For their sakes as well as for our own, we must keep Britain in Europe.

    • #32
  3. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    Claire, What is Conservative about Multiculturalism?

    I’m not sure I understand the question. No politician in France, literally not one, is a multiculturalist as Americans understand the term. It’s absolutely antithetical to core principles of the French state. I hate to keep referring to books I’ve written — I know it seems like I’m trying to sell myself, but I wrote about this quite a bit in this book in a chapter. You can also read an article I wrote about this about 12 years ago, here:

    France’s model of immigration, the so-called republican model, rests upon the demand that immigrants become culturally, intellectually, and politically assimilated. Like assimilation by the Borg, this process is complete: Immigrants are asked to abandon their native cultures and adopt a distinct set of mental habits, values, and shared historic memories. Taken as a whole, these habits, values, and memories — not shared religion, race, or blood — are held to be the essence of France, the glue that binds French citizens together.

    The core values of France, inherited from the French Revolution, are based on the idea of individual rights: For official France, it is the citizen who is recognized, never the ethnic group to which he belongs. When the French Revolution emancipated Protestants and Jews, it emancipated them as individual citizens, not as groups defined by their religious membership. Related to the republican model is the doctrine of laïcité, a strict form of secularism that derives historically from the bitter rejection of France’s authoritarian Catholicism. By this doctrine, all reference to religion must be excluded from the public sphere. In theory at least, laïcité guarantees equality before the law for all French citizens, and militates against anti-Semitism.

    The republican model of immigration has until recently allowed France successfully and completely to assimilate wave upon wave of Celtic, Germanic, Latin, and Slavic immigrants. The process is characterized by the state’s refusal legally to recognize cultural and ethnic minorities, the official denial of the very idea of cultural identity. Similar principles were applied as well in the former French colonies, often to peculiar effect: I have spoken to Cameroonians who recall opening their first history text as children and reading with bewilderment the book’s opening lines: Nos ancêtres, les gallois….

    Integration in France supposes an implied contract between the immigrant and the nation. The immigrant agrees to respect the universalist values of the republic, and the republic in turn guarantees his children full integration and social standing. Finance Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian immigrant, is an excellent case in point. In one generation, Sarkozy — who is of Jewish extraction — has come to dominate French political life. He has done so by being more French, more committed to republican values, even sounding more French, than any of his adversaries. He is widely expected to become France’s next prime minister.

    The American and Anglo-Saxon models of immigration rest upon significantly different principles and traditions. Britain and the United States both emerged as federations of smaller states; and in both societies there is a looser and more pragmatic relationship between citizens and the center, a greater devolution of authority to local governance. In consequence, Britain does not merely tolerate immigrants speaking their own languages and worshipping their own gods, it encourages them. London’s Muslim Welfare House, for example, subsidized by a grant from the British government, offers Koranic study and lessons in Arabic. The United States enforces multiculturalism with affirmative action programs backed by the full weight of the law. At every level of society, Americans are exhorted to celebrate diversity.

    The French government vigorously rejects this kind of cultural separatism, which it terms “communitarianism.” The word connotes the intrusion of unseemly religious or ethnic particularism into the public sphere, a refusal to be assimilated. The debate over the veil is emblematic. The French government has banned the veil in the classroom. In Britain, the issue is viewed as a matter for schools to resolve individually and independently of the government. In the United States, the Justice Department has intervened to protect the right of students to wear the veil in class.

    “Multiculturalism” wasn’t part of this election debate in France at all; it’s not a French political concept. This is something you might hear debated in Germany, or Britain, but not France.

    • #33
  4. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Claire Berlinski, Ed. (View Comment):
    Most people have no idea that these were her views. But they were, and they’ve been the views of many conservatives before and since.

    I think that there is substantial difference between the EEC and the Eurocracy of today. I suspect Lady Thatcher might supplement the commentary she made then and not be particularly enthused by the way Brussels is unaccountable and not really representative.

    • #34
  5. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Claire Berlinski, Ed. (View Comment):

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):
    Since so many French people speak English today, among other languages, do many of them read British and American news?

    Sure, many do, though I still think the number who could easily read an English-language newspaper’s probably less than 15 percent.

    I don’t easily read English-language newspapers either, but the meaning of that may be slightly different.

    • #35
  6. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Scott Abel (View Comment):
    I had an interesting lunch today with one of the 100 members of the Estonian parliament.
    I brought up the Macron leak, which they hadn’t heard about at that point. This person (their interests are heavily in foreign affairs) was first startled, and then … happy with the development. This person’s hot take:

    1) It’s too late to affect the election; if anything, it’s going to cause a backlash on late deciders
    2) It will puncture an “unjustified” superiority that the French administration has about its world-view, particularly on Russian matters (they brought up the sale of Mistral-class amphibious assault carriers that were sold to Russia over the objections of Eastern Europe and Baltic countries, and were only shamed into reneging on the deal months after the invasion of Ukraine)
    3) The new president (Macron) will remember
    4) The French, when they focus their minds on a target, can be kind of terrifying

    That’s just one political data point, but I found it interesting, (and according to Newt, living in St. Petersburg’s suburb) reassuring.

    I just watched this documentary about how it was Estonia that essentially broke up the Soviet Union.  I always remembered it being Lithuania that always seems like the troublesome South Carolina back then; I think people even made jokes about that back then.

    • #36
  7. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    Claire Berlinski, Ed. (View Comment):
    the election commission politely asked people to refrain from spreading rumors

    Maybe that’s considered a veiled threat that if anyone reveals what’s in them, they’ll get a “polite” knock on their door followed by a visit to their “polite” police station.

    You have to peek under the surface, but it is clear that the government oppression of the people in that country is repulsive.

    If you think I am exaggerating, imagine Donald Trump ordering CNN, MSNBC, et al to not talk about the 2018 Mid-Terms starting the Sunday before Election Tuesday. I can’t see that ending well.

    God Bless the Constitution of the United States Of America.

    I moved to France from a country — Turkey — where the government’s oppression of the people is repulsive, and don’t at all feel that France is such a country. It is true and obviously true that France’s constitution does not protect speech as robustly as does the United States’. The US Constitution sets the gold standard for the protection of speech in that it’s the only constitution, as far as I know, of a major nation that frames its commitment to freedom of expression as a limit. Congress shall make no law, period. (God Bless the Constitution of the United States Of America.)

    But France doesn’t do badly at all at protecting speech, by global standards. In fact, according to some indices, France enjoys more press freedom than the US. Reporters without Borders, for example, ranks France 39th in the world, and the US 43rd.

    Freedom House ranks France “free” — it’s highest possible score. On press freedom specifically, it ranks the US 23 and France 26 (out of a possible 100, with 100 “least free.”) So “repulsive oppression?” No.

    And French law, even in this case, is far from “repulsive oppression.” That’s a term that shouldn’t be thrown around lightly. It suggests a false equivalence between France and countries where people really do suffer from repulsive oppression. It trivializes that which is genuinely repulsive and oppressive. What France has, in this case, in my view, is just a bad law, or one in need of updating — although I think reasonable people can make a case for it.  Let me explain.

    The law, which is longstanding, provides for a 44-hour media blackout on elections before a vote. The period is meant to allow people to reflect calmly before they cast their ballot and militate against voter intimidation and election fraud. It is an affront to the US Constitutional principle that the government shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. But the 1958 French Constitution is not framed that way, and thus the law is neither unconstitutional here, nor arbitrary.

    The blackout starts at midnight Saturday and lasts until polling stations are closed Sunday. It’s a predictable, consistent, and limited, 44-hour period. This kind of law is called “Election silence,” or a “Blackout period,” and it’s similar to laws on the books in at least 40 other countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and Italy. In Ireland, for example, the blackout lasts from 2pm the day prior to the election to the close of the polls. (FYI, in 1992 the Supreme Court ruled in Burson v. Freeman that election silence could be imposed, on election day, within 100 feet of the polling station, but that anything more would be unconstitutional. So even in the US, election silence laws of a very limited kind have stood up in court).

    It is not a law that can be made on the spot by the president, for no reason, or according to his whims or political calculations. The law was drafted and passed by the legitimately-elected French Parliament (comprised of the National Assembly and the Senate), whose power in turn rests with the French people. The law has been in place prior to every election France has held since it was passed half a century ago.

    It very certainly isn’t (as I’m seeing some Americans on the Internet assert), a random decree issued by faceless bureaucrats — or by a single, powerful person — specifically to keep the news about these leaks from the public. Even if it had been discovered that Le Pen was a shape-shifting alien, once “election silence” descends, it descends. The media would not have been allowed to report on it, nor would her campaign have been allowed to respond to the charge.  So this is completely unrelated to the content of the leaks, per se.

    It would have been arbitrary and random to change the law because of these leaks — and it would also have been impossible, because French law can only be made and  passed in its parliament.

    So this law isn’t at all analogous to the hypothetical you describe of “Donald Trump ordering CNN, MSNBC, et al to not talk about the 2018 Mid-Terms starting the Sunday before Election Tuesday.” Trump doesn’t have the constitutional power to do this. The French National Assembly does. The law applies equally to all candidates; and it is widely supported by the French people — a fact that’s very relevant to assessing whether it constitutes “repulsive oppression.” If people have the subjective sense that the law expresses their own will about how the election should be conducted — and people here do have that sense — I think it’s possible to argue that it’s an inherently illiberal law or a dangerous precedent or outdated (as I would, on all three points), but not that it’s repulsively oppressive.

    In fact, what I’m hearing right now — though obviously this is not a well-conducted poll, just anecdotes — are a lot of expressions of gratitude for this law, and the sense that it’s doing just what it was intended to do: I’m seeing and hearing people express the sense that clearly, someone — probably Russia — tried to mess with their election. No one in a sovereign nation takes well to this. So people are grateful both that the law is limiting the dissemination of the leaks, but also that it reinforces the idea that the period right before the vote is a quasi-sacred moment, one during which voters are to reflect upon the solemnity and gravity of the decision and their responsibility for it, not a last-minute chance for a freakshow.

    It is true that if you break this, or any, law in France, you can expect a “polite” knock on their door followed by a visit to the “polite” police station. Or more precisely,  any media outlet, pollster or citizen who violates these laws — for example by publishing leaked exit polls on Twitter — may be subject to a fine, depending on the nature of the violation. (For example, the law takes a particularly dim view of those who publish embargoed exit poll data). In reality, no one is going to be fined for gossipping about these leaks on Twitter — it would be impossible to enforce that; which is a sign the law is outdated. But the mainstream media is respecting the law, not least because their audiences would be disgusted if they didn’t. People like this law, and feel that it protects the dignity and the purpose of their elections.

    To be clear: I do not support the law. Like all Americans who understand why our Constitution was written as it was, I think it’s dangerous to give any government the power, even in principle, to limit political speech in any way, for any reason. I don’t think this law is a bad, or an arbitrary, abuse of that power. But I don’t think any organ of any government should have that power, period. Still, let’s acknowledge that this is a uniquely American way of viewing things.

    I also think the law is anachronistic: In the age of social media, the law can’t work as designed and in fact works to the opposite purpose. It no longer ensures a quiet, private reflection period before voting; it ensures that people are exposed to a lot of noise on social media that’s even less subject to vetting than it would be if politicians and the media were allowed to weigh in.

    But unless you’re saying that all countries without First-Amendment-like protections for speech are “repulsively oppressive” — and that’s actually all countries apart from the US — there’s no reason in particular to find this law so strange or horrifying. And again, having lived in a country where such diktats are issued arbitrarily and extra-legally, where people do feel themselves to be repulsively oppressed, I would say these words are hugely meaningful: If we call this “repulsive oppression,” we have no vocabulary left to describe countries where the prisons are full of people who’ve made jokes on Twitter about the president-for-life. Many such countries exist.

    France isn’t one of them.

     

    • #37
  8. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

     

     

     

     

    Those two have been all over the news.

    Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, right?

     

    • #38
  9. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Claire Berlinski, Ed. (View Comment):

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    Claire Berlinski, Ed. (View Comment):
    But unless you’re saying that all countries without First-Amendment-like protections for speech are “repulsively oppressive” — and that’s actually all countries apart from the US — there’s no reason in particular to find this law so strange or horrifying. And again, having lived in a country where such diktats are issued arbitrarily and extra-legally, where people do feel themselves to be repulsively oppressed, I would say these words are hugely meaningful: If we call this “repulsive oppression,” we have no vocabulary left to describe countries where the prisons are full of people who’ve made jokes on Twitter about the president-for-life. Many such countries exist.

    France isn’t one of them.

    The US under McCain Feingold would drift then gallop toward repulsive oppression if we continued to allow it because the protections rest on  government rather than culture protected only by the courts which were rapidly becoming repulsively oppressive.   Any doubt?  one need only consider the outrage and constant propaganda against the Citizens United Decision and our college campuses.   They know what they’re doing and we just escaped a bullet.

     

    • #39
  10. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Claire Berlinski, Ed. (View Comment):

    Even if it had been discovered that Le Pen was a shape-shifting alien…

    Who else thought Blorgulax?  Come on, be honest.

     

    • #40
  11. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    I Walton (View Comment):
    The US under McCain Feingold would drift then gallop toward repulsive oppression if we continued to allow it because the protections rest on government rather than culture protected only by the courts which were rapidly becoming repulsively oppressive. Any doubt? one need only consider the outrage and constant propaganda against the Citizens United Decision and our college campuses. They know what they’re doing and we just escaped a bullet.

    Yes. “By global standards” is the epitaph of liberty.

    • #41
  12. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Claire Berlinski, Ed. (View Comment):
    How is it not? Many conservative politicians (from Winston Churchill to Margaret Thatcher*) supported it or its precursors

    They wanted a trade bloc, not an unelected dictatorship that is so antithetical to Conservative orthodoxy.

    • #42
  13. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Claire Berlinski, Ed. (View Comment):
    “Multiculturalism” wasn’t part of this election debate in France at all; it’s not a French political concept. This is something you might hear debated in Germany, or Britain, but not France.

    Yes it is. Are you saying that Macron is not a Multiculturalist? He has admitted himself that he believes in multiculturalism.

    • #43
  14. Scott Abel Inactive
    Scott Abel
    @ScottAbel

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):

    Scott Abel (View Comment):
    I had an interesting lunch today with one of the 100 members of the Estonian parliament.
    I brought up the Macron leak, which they hadn’t heard about at that point. This person (their interests are heavily in foreign affairs) was first startled, and then … happy with the development. This person’s hot take:

    1) It’s too late to affect the election; if anything, it’s going to cause a backlash on late deciders
    2) It will puncture an “unjustified” superiority that the French administration has about its world-view, particularly on Russian matters (they brought up the sale of Mistral-class amphibious assault carriers that were sold to Russia over the objections of Eastern Europe and Baltic countries, and were only shamed into reneging on the deal months after the invasion of Ukraine)
    3) The new president (Macron) will remember
    4) The French, when they focus their minds on a target, can be kind of terrifying

    That’s just one political data point, but I found it interesting, (and according to Newt, living in St. Petersburg’s suburb) reassuring.

    I just watched this documentary about how it was Estonia that essentially broke up the Soviet Union. I always remembered it being Lithuania that always seems like the troublesome South Carolina back then; I think people even made jokes about that back then.

    That guy shaking Gorbachev’s hand at 6:40 was at my house last week for dinner. His name is Igor Grazin, and is one of the smartest people I know. He was the first to read the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact out loud in the Soviet Duma, and he’s one of the first people I turn to when I need to figure out what’s going on in Russia today.

    Incidentally, this film has a golden moment after the introduction that puts to bed when or not Gorby was any kind of democrat, when he says that any discussions or reforms have to be done in the context of the current socialistic system. Gorbs’ little reform experiment just got away from him, due in part to a lot of the people in this documentary, who were saying one thing to his face but pushing towards re-independence behind his back.

    The Lithuanians are a more hot-headed and pushed harder, faster, and they bore the brunt of the backlash, unfortunately.

    We are two hours ahead of Paris time, so I imagine we’ll at least stay up for the exits tonight. It could be a long night if it is close. This is a vote that all of Europe is paying attention to this time, the biggest since the Brexit referendum last summer.

    • #44
  15. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Scott Abel (View Comment):
    Incidentally, this film has a golden moment after the introduction that puts to bed when or not Gorby was any kind of democrat, when he says that any discussions or reforms have to be done in the context of the current socialistic system.

    It was fairly favorable to Yeltsin before the effects of booze and the KGB led to the less dynamic Yeltsin we tend to remember.

    • #45
  16. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):
    I just watched this documentary about how it was Estonia that essentially broke up the Soviet Union. I always remembered it being Lithuania that always seems like the troublesome South Carolina back then; I think people even made jokes about that back then.

    Thank you for the recommendation. That was excellent.

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    It was fairly favorable to Yeltsin before the effects of booze and the KGB led to the less dynamic Yeltsin we tend to remember.

    I remember watching things as they transpired and thinking that Yeltsin, for all his faults, was the greatest Russian of the 20th century. The guy who kicks over the table is rarely the guy who gets the game reorganized afterward. Washington was a blessing that most people in this country now fail to appreciate for what it was that he actually accomplished after the Revolution.

    • #46
  17. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Trump is no Conservative and many of his supporters recognized this while he was running. What I can’t understand is why people who support the EU, voted for Hillary Clinton, contribute to the cultural suicide of the west through Islamic immigration, and support open borders are considered Conservative. In fact I would argue it is these issues which have led so many right of center people to outright reject Conservatism. Now the right could go about trying to replace these voters, or they could change their stance on them. One thing is for sure though, the people will no longer let them have it both ways.

    • #47
  18. Scott Abel Inactive
    Scott Abel
    @ScottAbel

    It looks like the election is done. Exit polls have Macron up by 30 points, even larger than he was polling.

    Le Pen has congratulated Macron.

    And that’s a wrap, everybody!

    • #48
  19. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    What I can’t understand is why people who support the EU, voted for Hillary Clinton, contribute to the cultural suicide of the west through Islamic immigration, and support open borders are considered Conservative.

    Not by me.

    • #49
  20. JcTPatriot Member
    JcTPatriot
    @

    Rodin (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    What I can’t understand is why people who support the EU, voted for Hillary Clinton, contribute to the cultural suicide of the west through Islamic immigration, and support open borders are considered Conservative.

    Not by me.

    They aren’t considered Conservative by anyone. They’re fooling themselves, perhaps. Being a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist is hard for some of them to admit. That’s why so many of them call themselves “Centrists” and “Independents” because they are loath to admit they are part of a party that includes such creeps as Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray, and Charles Schumer, and they watch television stations that include such creeps as Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, and Van Jones. So they come on here and pretend to be right-of-center, but if you grill them, you will be unable to find a single Conservative principle in which they truly believe.

    • #50
  21. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    What I can’t understand is why people who support the EU, voted for Hillary Clinton, contribute to the cultural suicide of the west through Islamic immigration, and support open borders are considered Conservative.

    Not by me.

    They aren’t. They’re liars. They are dyed-in-the-wool Leftists who like coming on here and lying to people.

    Calling people liars is out of line.

    • #51
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Now now, no need to chuck a wobbly!

    • #52
  23. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    @claire, I believe a wise, handsome, and humble man– like, more humble than anyone in the world — told you after Geert bit the dust it was curtains for Le Pen.

    This person I speak of is also too magnanimous to point out his many correct prognostications.

    His temple hair is also not receding. It’s on hiatus.

    • #53
  24. JcTPatriot Member
    JcTPatriot
    @

    Percival (View Comment):

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    What I can’t understand is why people who support the EU, voted for Hillary Clinton, contribute to the cultural suicide of the west through Islamic immigration, and support open borders are considered Conservative.

    Not by me.

    They aren’t. They’re liars. They are dyed-in-the-wool Leftists who like coming on here and lying to people.

    Calling people liars is out of line.

    Thanks for the coaching. I changed it.

    • #54
  25. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    What I can’t understand is why people who support the EU, voted for Hillary Clinton, contribute to the cultural suicide of the west through Islamic immigration, and support open borders are considered Conservative.

    Not by me.

    They aren’t considered Conservative by anyone. They’re fooling themselves, perhaps. Being a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist is hard for some of them to admit. That’s why so many of them call themselves “Centrists” and “Independents” because they are loath to admit they are part of a party that includes such creeps as Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray, and Charles Schumer, and they watch television stations that include such creeps as Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, and Van Jones. So they come on here and pretend to be right-of-center, but if you grill them, you will be unable to find a single Conservative principle in which they truly believe.

    Gimmie a break dude. Enough with the Conservatism refereeing. Right-wing populism broke the cardinal rule of Conservatism: Free Trade. To hell with Ideologies, I’m in for what works for America: Free Speech and Free Trade.

    This lock-step litany of ideals you have laid down to conform to — now that’s straight out of the leftist “dyed-in-the-wool” playbook.

    • #55
  26. JcTPatriot Member
    JcTPatriot
    @

    JLock (View Comment):

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    What I can’t understand is why people who support the EU, voted for Hillary Clinton, contribute to the cultural suicide of the west through Islamic immigration, and support open borders are considered Conservative.

    Not by me.

    They aren’t considered Conservative by anyone. They’re fooling themselves, perhaps. Being a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist is hard for some of them to admit. That’s why so many of them call themselves “Centrists” and “Independents” because they are loath to admit they are part of a party that includes such creeps as Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray, and Charles Schumer, and they watch television stations that include such creeps as Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, and Van Jones. So they come on here and pretend to be right-of-center, but if you grill them, you will be unable to find a single Conservative principle in which they truly believe.

    Gimmie a break dude. Enough with the Conservatism refereeing. Right-wing populism broke the cardinal rule of Conservatism: Free Trade. To hell with Ideologies, I’m in for what works for America: Free Speech and Free Trade.

    This lock-step litany of ideals you have laid down to conform to — now that’s straight out of the leftist “dyed-in-the-wool” playbook.

    I call it as I see it, my friend. If you voted for Hillary, no matter the reason, you are not a Conservative. Period.

    • #56
  27. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    What I can’t understand is why people who support the EU, voted for Hillary Clinton, contribute to the cultural suicide of the west through Islamic immigration, and support open borders are considered Conservative.

    Not by me.

    They aren’t considered Conservative by anyone. They’re fooling themselves, perhaps. Being a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist is hard for some of them to admit. That’s why so many of them call themselves “Centrists” and “Independents” because they are loath to admit they are part of a party that includes such creeps as Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray, and Charles Schumer, and they watch television stations that include such creeps as Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, and Van Jones. So they come on here and pretend to be right-of-center, but if you grill them, you will be unable to find a single Conservative principle in which they truly believe.

    Gimmie a break dude. Enough with the Conservatism refereeing. Right-wing populism broke the cardinal rule of Conservatism: Free Trade. To hell with Ideologies, I’m in for what works for America: Free Speech and Free Trade.

    This lock-step litany of ideals you have laid down to conform to — now that’s straight out of the leftist “dyed-in-the-wool” playbook.

    I call it as I see it, my friend. If you voted for Hillary, no matter the reason, you are not a Conservative. Period.

    Damn it, its you JcT. You pulled a me and changed your picture.

    In Claire’s (and partly my) defense — some of us had an ideological breakdown from this last election. I’ve always been an Independent (which is always badass to say, I don’t care what anyone thinks) but have never voted for a 3rd party candidate until this last election. Claire bared her heart on why she chose Hillary and it made sense. People bared their heart on why they chose Trump and they made sense as well (I bore my heart and it made no sense as per usual).

    Point is, don’t make the Liberal mistake of demanding conditions on allies. Or you will find this pendulum shall swing back real quick.

    • #57
  28. JcTPatriot Member
    JcTPatriot
    @

    JLock (View Comment):

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    What I can’t understand is why people who support the EU, voted for Hillary Clinton, contribute to the cultural suicide of the west through Islamic immigration, and support open borders are considered Conservative.

    Not by me.

    They aren’t considered Conservative by anyone. They’re fooling themselves, perhaps. Being a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist is hard for some of them to admit. That’s why so many of them call themselves “Centrists” and “Independents” because they are loath to admit they are part of a party that includes such creeps as Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray, and Charles Schumer, and they watch television stations that include such creeps as Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, and Van Jones. So they come on here and pretend to be right-of-center, but if you grill them, you will be unable to find a single Conservative principle in which they truly believe.

    Gimmie a break dude. Enough with the Conservatism refereeing. Right-wing populism broke the cardinal rule of Conservatism: Free Trade. To hell with Ideologies, I’m in for what works for America: Free Speech and Free Trade.

    This lock-step litany of ideals you have laid down to conform to — now that’s straight out of the leftist “dyed-in-the-wool” playbook.

    I call it as I see it, my friend. If you voted for Hillary, no matter the reason, you are not a Conservative. Period.

    Damn it, its you JcT. You pulled a me and changed your picture.

    In Claire’s (and partly my) defense — some of us had an ideological breakdown from this last election. I’ve always been an Independent (which is always badass to say, I don’t care what anyone thinks) but have never voted for a 3rd party candidate until this last election. Claire bared her heart on why she chose Hillary and it made sense. People bared their heart on why they chose Trump and they made sense as well (I bore my heart and it made no sense as per usual).

    Point is, don’t make the Liberal mistake of demanding conditions on allies. Or you will find this pendulum shall swing back real quick.

    Reasons to vote against Hillary: 237,432 reasons. Liar, crook, rape enabler, thief, briber, bribed, false witness…

    Reason to vote for Hillary: I hate Trump.

    Really? Does that sound logical? Nah. If you voted for Hillary, you’re not a Conservative. There’s just no getting around it.

    • #58
  29. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):

    JcTPatriot (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):
    What I can’t understand is why people who support the EU, voted for Hillary Clinton, contribute to the cultural suicide of the west through Islamic immigration, and support open borders are considered Conservative.

    Not by me.

    They aren’t considered Conservative by anyone. They’re fooling themselves, perhaps. Being a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist is hard for some of them to admit. That’s why so many of them call themselves “Centrists” and “Independents” because they are loath to admit they are part of a party that includes such creeps as Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray, and Charles Schumer, and they watch television stations that include such creeps as Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, and Van Jones. So they come on here and pretend to be right-of-center, but if you grill them, you will be unable to find a single Conservative principle in which they truly believe.

    Gimmie a break dude. Enough with the Conservatism refereeing. Right-wing populism broke the cardinal rule of Conservatism: Free Trade. To hell with Ideologies, I’m in for what works for America: Free Speech and Free Trade.

    This lock-step litany of ideals you have laid down to conform to — now that’s straight out of the leftist “dyed-in-the-wool” playbook.

    I call it as I see it, my friend. If you voted for Hillary, no matter the reason, you are not a Conservative. Period.

    Damn it, its you JcT. You pulled a me and changed your picture.

    In Claire’s (and partly my) defense — some of us had an ideological breakdown from this last election. I’ve always been an Independent (which is always badass to say, I don’t care what anyone thinks) but have never voted for a 3rd party candidate until this last election. Claire bared her heart on why she chose Hillary and it made sense. People bared their heart on why they chose Trump and they made sense as well (I bore my heart and it made no sense as per usual).

    Point is, don’t make the Liberal mistake of demanding conditions on allies. Or you will find this pendulum shall swing back real quick.

    Reasons to vote against Hillary: 237,432 reasons. Liar, crook, rape enabler, thief, briber, bribed, false witness…

    Reason to vote for Hillary: I hate Trump.

    Really? Does that sound logical? Nah. If you voted for Hillary, you’re not a Conservative. There’s just no getting around it.

    By your definition. Anti-TPP and anti-NAFTA — thems economics as liberal as it gets, my friend.

    • #59
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.